Supreme Court Will Decide Governor-Press Access Case : Public records: Justices will hear The Times’ suit seeking examination of Deukmejian’s appointment logs.

The state Supreme Court, in a test of public access to governmental records, agreed Thursday to decide whether Gov. George Deukmejian must turn over his daily appointment schedule to news reporters.

The justices set aside a ruling by a state Court of Appeal last January that the records must be provided to the Los Angeles Times after a judge has examined them in private and removed any material that could endanger the governor’s security.

The Times had brought suit after Deukmejian refused a reporter’s request for the documents. The governor said their release would jeopardize his safety and infringe on his decision-making process by undermining the candid exchange of ideas and information among people with whom he meets.

In another action, the justices, leaving intact another appeals court ruling, refused to allow state authorities to bring forgery charges against Assemblyman John R. Lewis (R-Orange) for ordering the mailing during his 1986 campaign of thousands of letters bearing the fraudulent signature of then-President Ronald Reagan.

A state Court of Appeal in January reluctantly held that under California law, forgery charges could be brought only when there is intent to defraud victims of money or property. Meanwhile, legislation has been introduced in Sacramento that would permit forgery charges for the unauthorized use of signatures in political campaigns.

State prosecutors had asked the high court to allow the prosecution of Lewis on grounds that the voters had been defrauded of their right to cast an informed ballot. But on Thursday, only Justices Stanley Mosk and Allen E. Broussard voted to review the appellate court ruling--two votes short of the number required for review.

In the governor’s calendar case, The Times brought suit under the state Public Records Act in August, 1988, seeking copies of Deukmejian’s appointment schedules, calendars and other documents of daily activities dating back to his inauguration in 1983.

A Sacramento Superior Court judge ruled for the governor, finding that such material amounted to “correspondence” and was exempt from public access under the act. The appeals court later overturned that ruling, ordering the documents released after a judge removed information posing a “legitimate security risk.”

In their subsequent appeal to the high court, attorneys for the governor contended that release of the material would reveal patterns and habits that would jeopardize the safety of Deukmejian, his family and associates. The lawyers also argued that confidentiality was necessary to assure that sensitive matters could be discussed freely in meetings with the governor.

State Deputy Atty. Gen. Richard M. Frank welcomed the high court’s action Thursday, saying the case raised “important legal and policy issues” under the act. Rex S. Heinke of Los Angeles, an attorney for The Times, expressed disappointment, noting that the case already has been pending for nearly two years.

As customary, the justices did not indicate when they would hear the case, and it is possible that Deukmejian, due to step down in January, will have left office before a decision is rendered. Frank and Heinke said it was unclear whether under such circumstances Deukmejian would have to turn over the calendars if The Times ultimately prevailed. In any event, the ruling would apply to future governors, the attorneys said.

In other action Thursday, the justices:

Refused to hear a challenge by state Sen. Diane Watson (D-Los Angeles) and other officials to a provision of Proposition 73, the 1988 political reform initiative, that prohibits officeholders from sending out newsletters or other mass mailings at public expense.

Upheld the death sentence of the convicted slayer of a Merced College mathematics instructor. On a 4-2 vote, the high court rejected an appeal from Thaddeus Louis Turner, found guilty in the stabbing death of Roy Savage in April, 1984.

Turner, claiming he had killed Savage in a “panic” after the educator made homosexual advances, contended he should not have faced capital charges. But the court majority, in an opinion by Justice David N. Eagleson, held there was adequate proof that Turner committed the slaying during the course of a robbery, and thus was eligible for the death penalty.